The Mumbai ITAT held that the appellate authority failed to consider pending writ petitions and interim directions of the Bombay High Court regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(via). The matter was remanded for reconsideration after final disposal of the writ petitions.
The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return, when it was available before processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to amend the intimation and consider the audit report.
The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed under Section 47(iv) were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the parent company did not hold the entire share capital through itself or nominees.
ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the chats lacked corroborative evidence showing actual payment of money.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271AAC cannot survive once the underlying Section 153C assessment is quashed. The Tribunal deleted the penalty after noting that the quantum assessment itself no longer existed.
ITAT Delhi held that electronic evidence seized during search proceedings cannot be relied upon without mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal ruled that initiation of Section 153C proceedings based on uncertified electronic records was invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that where sales are accepted and purchases are supported by invoices and banking transactions, only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. The Tribunal restricted the addition by applying the average profit rate instead of sustaining the entire disallowance.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the issue was highly debatable at the relevant time.
The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revealing the basis of the outstanding demand.
The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-believe or accommodation entry transaction. The assessee’s regular trading history supported the genuineness of the transactions.
